I apologize for exaggerating the damage of the Star Destroyer. The Corvette goes from little or no visible damage to completely disintegrated in a single salvo from very few of the Star Destroyers guns, possibly only two. Clear?

that we see anyway.

Yes, that's what visible means.

I think it is reasonable to assume these scenes are canon because they are in no way able to be influenced by or have an influence on gameplay. Because the article focuses almost entirely on elements that do have an effect or can be affected, I think this is reasonable. The point you continue to rehash, shields on an AT-AT, is totally gameplay related, and should therefore not be considered canon. Do you see the difference?

you only think its reasonable because you want them to be canon. its a GAME ffs. since I haven't played it, what happens if you aren't victorious? is it a different cutscene? game over? provide some context for those of us who haven't played it. what scene? what mission?

If the Rebellion succeeds in destroying the walker, then the transport lifts away safely. Alternative endings depend on the planet. As far as I can remember, the only other ending is on Hoth, where the shield generator is destroyed if the walkers survive.

The Star Destroyer destroys the Corvette as part of the opening to the Survival mode on Tatooine. Nothing the player does can change this in any way.

This is not relevant in any way to the argument.

And regardless, you were and continue to be extremely presumptive about which elements are and are not canon, and with a degree of certainty I find disturbing given your total lack of evidence or even logical thought. Next time, put more than thirty seconds into your response before trying to redirect effort onto someone else. And for the love of God, please condense into just one or two posts!

you are the one that claimed it was canon. therefore its up to you to prove that it is. you haven't done that. "I think its reasonable so that it helps my argument" proves absolutely nothing. even the creaters of the game said that its canon where its canon and non canon where its non canon. I have already given at least one example of it being non canon. does that mean the whole thing is canon? no. but you have yet to prove the cutscenes are canon. you cant.

The game creators said it was canon and non canon in different places. You have proved one instance of non canon. That has no bearing on other components of the game.

Because all of the components of the game listed as non canon in the above article are gameplay related, and this is not, it is reasonable to assume this is one of the parts considered canon. Just like you assume that two explosions which look considerably different are not different, because you think so and it helps your argument. You don't know. I don't know. But this makes logical sense.

its not hard to figure out. if there is something in any part of the game that doesn't jive with on screen canon then that part is not canon. we don't know the context of that blockade runner. how long had it been fighting? there were TIEs in the air too. did it go up against any of them before passing the ISD? without seeing the whole thing from start to finish that 2 seconds of the clip is useless anyway.

This does not in any way contradict anything we see on screen. If turbolasers have variable yield, for which we have no conclusive disproof, then this makes total sense. And as I said above, the Corvette goes from little visible damage to total disintegration. It may have been damaged along certain structural faults, but we still see a massive fireball and few whole components following the blast. We can see that it is not missing any major parts prior to its destruction, nor is it flaming, or already exploding. Regardless of its condition, this is a much more powerful blast than what disabled Tantive IV.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
--Mace

The Old Testament has as much validity for the foundation of a religion as the pattern my recent case of insect bites formed on my ass.
--Solauren

texanmarauder wrote:image one. flak burst in space.
image 2. flak burst in space with planet in background. NOT a planetside explosion or impact.

Also "not a planetside explosion" hasn't been proven, that's just your opinion, because it serves your purpose and you have demonstrably dismissed evidence to the contrary. You are dishonest.
Look closer: the second ("planetside") has debris briefly expanding, slowing, and stopping (doesn't happen in space that fast), the first (the flak burst) doesn't have debris at all. Crap animation in the series aside, they're different effects. Ok, I used imprecise language when i said "no fireball". Big win for you! provided you ignore everything else about the exchange.
I sense you will.

To the direct question regarding flak bursts from turbolasers, after I give you the Canon armament of the Munificent, Imperial-I and Imperial-II, (with no "flak guns" listed) your next defense is "FLAK GUN!" (a Legends source on top of that!) I don't care about your fish. I do care about your dishonesty.

Munificent: Canon length? Well, it doesn't have one, but Legends (RotS CIS) list 825m long, 426m wide. As the design continues to appear in nu-Canon sources, I am comfortable in that they didn't rescale it significantly larger or smaller (since TCW was in production before the acquisition, and would have been guided by contemporaneous old-Canon sources). So if the widest part is the mid-ship "wing", that gives us a measurement for the image you provided:

Taking the "average" explosion, center amidships, close to the wing, on the forward face of the aft hull - because a) it's clear and b) isn't concealed by the hull, and c) close to the scaling position on the hull: 22 pixels or ~35m. Three times your "~10m" guess from the flak bursts on the escape pods. (also, no guarantee they are 10m escape pods.)

The hits to the Venator in your clip? About the same, found the same way.

Formless is right: you're a dishonest troll, I'm out.

Merry Sithmas!

Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says.
Rule #2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule #3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule #4: Be outraged.
Rule #5: Don’t make compromises.

If the Rebellion succeeds in destroying the walker, then the transport lifts away safely. Alternative endings depend on the planet. As far as I can remember, the only other ending is on Hoth, where the shield generator is destroyed if the walkers survive.

that makes it an element of gameplay there sir. that's not a cut scene. that's an ending scene for a particular mission that changes based on victory or failure. that doesn't make it canon or even reasonable for it to be canon since there is no chance for the transport to survive if you fail. you control that aspect in as much as a person can control it.

The Star Destroyer destroys the Corvette as part of the opening to the Survival mode on Tatooine. Nothing the player does can change this in any way.

This is not relevant in any way to the argument.

what is relevant to the argument is the entire battle. as I said before, we only see the corvette for about 1 to 1.5 seconds. with the demonstrated on screen firepower we have seen, there is no way to destroy a corvette in just one shot, or even three shots.

The game creators said it was canon and non canon in different places. You have proved one instance of non canon. That has no bearing on other components of the game.

it proves that the tech is not always canon. before, the non canon element has emphasized the story, not the gameplay elements or tech. its a case by case basis type thing.

Because all of the components of the game listed as non canon in the above article are gameplay related, and this is not, it is reasonable to assume this is one of the parts considered canon.

what makes it canon? we have never seen an ISD one, two, or even 3 shot ANY ship. ever. you have yet to prove anything.

Just like you assume that two explosions which look considerably different are not different, because you think so and it helps your argument. You don't know. I don't know. But this makes logical sense.

would you like me to show you the screenshots I took from Netflix again? you said no fireball. oh look, a fireball! those flak bursts were identical. get over it.

This does not in any way contradict anything we see on screen. If turbolasers have variable yield, for which we have no conclusive disproof, then this makes total sense.

you also have no conclusive proof that they do. for every instance that has come up from both you and formless, there has been a logical explanation that fits better than variable yield. I have seen several people on this forum make that claim. never has any definitive proof been offered. you are no exception. prove it or concede.

And as I said above, the Corvette goes from little visible damage to total disintegration. It may have been damaged along certain structural faults, but we still see a massive fireball and few whole components following the blast. We can see that it is not missing any major parts prior to its destruction, nor is it flaming, or already exploding. Regardless of its condition, this is a much more powerful blast than what disabled Tantive IV.

has it ever occurred to you that the character we see in the foreground was crawling away from an escape pod? why would he need an escape pod? to escape a doomed ship? too damaged to escape maybe? we only see the corvette from one angle. we don't see anything else aside from 3 shots hitting it in the rear and it exploding with the explosion originating amidships. so again, without seeing the whole battle, you have no proof of ANYTHING

You are returning to the same arguments I just debunked. Three times, I've written the same shit rephrased so your mind could comprehend it. Three times, I've overestimated your intelligence. You have shown nothing but continuous idiocy. Good day and go fuck yourself.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
--Mace

The Old Testament has as much validity for the foundation of a religion as the pattern my recent case of insect bites formed on my ass.
--Solauren

Khaat wrote:Also "not a planetside explosion" hasn't been proven, that's just your opinion, because it serves your purpose and you have demonstrably dismissed evidence to the contrary. You are dishonest.

I could say the same thing about you.

Look closer: the second ("planetside") has debris briefly expanding, slowing, and stopping (doesn't happen in space that fast), the first (the flak burst) doesn't have debris at all.

lets take a look at that shall we?

here is a flak burst in space from that youtube video played at .25 speed.

here is the flak burst expanding oh gee. I do believe I detect some kind of "debris".

and the burst STILL expanding with visible elements of "debris"

this screenshot is from Netflix with slightly higher quality and resolution. you can still clearly see "debris"

and just for shits and giggles, ill throw in another still with another burst that actually began well ahead of the pod offscreen that clearly shows explanding sparks or "debris" on the right side of the burst.
not only that, but those bursts expanded at the exact same rate, best as I could tell, as the ones we see with the planet in the background. we only clearly see the ones with a planet behind them expanding from start to finish. and you never responded when I pointed out that we see bolts go PAST the pod and make no burst or impact flash whatsoever. so don't call me dishonest when I legitimately point out flaws in your reasoning that you yourself could have seen if you had looked.

Crap animation in the series aside, they're different effects. Ok, I used imprecise language when i said "no fireball". Big win for you! provided you ignore everything else about the exchange.
I sense you will.

I agree the effects suck. but these aren't different. you cant have it both ways. either the effects all suck in animations, which makes them worthless for anything and unusable, or they are different, which I proved they aren't. all I got from you was a claim. what you got from me was doing your work for ya and disproving you in the process.

To the direct question regarding flak bursts from turbolasers, after I give you the Canon armament of the Munificent, Imperial-I and Imperial-II, (with no "flak guns" listed) your next defense is "FLAK GUN!" (a Legends source on top of that!) I don't care about your fish. I do care about your dishonesty.

for that matter, the neither the legend or canon page lists flak guns on a class 2 ISD but we still see flak bursts during the falcon chase in ESB. plus the canon page for the avenger doesn't list light turbolasers, yet we see them fired. wiki isn't 100% accurate my friend.

You are returning to the same arguments I just debunked. Three times, I've written the same shit rephrased so your mind could comprehend it. Three times, I've overestimated your intelligence. You have shown nothing but continuous idiocy. Good day and go fuck yourself.

concession accepted. I will even gracefully ignore the broken record routine.

for that matter, the neither the legend or canon page lists flak guns on a class 2 ISD but we still see flak bursts during the falcon chase in ESB. plus the canon page for the avenger doesn't list light turbolasers, yet we see them fired. wiki isn't 100% accurate my friend.

THIS IS HIS GOD DAMN POINT!

This entire time, Khaat has been trying to tell you that turbolasers have multiple settings. No flak guns or light guns are listed BECAUSE TURBOLASERS CAN CHANGE THEIR SETTINGS. God damn, kid. I'd heard the term "digging your own grave," but you took it to a whole new level.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
--Mace

The Old Testament has as much validity for the foundation of a religion as the pattern my recent case of insect bites formed on my ass.
--Solauren

This entire time, Khaat has been trying to tell you that turbolasers have multiple settings. No flak guns or light guns are listed BECAUSE TURBOLASERS CAN CHANGE THEIR SETTINGS. God damn, kid. I'd heard the term "digging your own grave," but you took it to a whole new level.

the flak burst from the avenger have been dismissed as shield interaction, not variable yield. that's even in the behind the scenes section that I already linked. of course, in all fairness it also says that the lateral laser canons on a venator are flak guns and we know that's not true. another theory that has more credibility is the fact that the SFX at the time consisted of roto scoping after the fact, with inconsistent and varying results. which means that the lengths of the bolt change from one perspective to the next. we also see this during the lightsaber duel in ANH where obi wans blade changes visibly as his lightsaber changes direction in relation to the camera. since just about every example we have seen of supposed variable yield comes from the OT movies, specifically ESB for the most part, that means that the best and most plausible explanation for "variable yield" is simple inconsistency in the effects. hell, even in R1 the bolts didn't look the same as any of the OT or PT.

Final thing I will say on this issue. texan, you asked me if I had any other examples of variable firepower in canon. I do. Its one that cannot be ignored either in nu-canon or old canon. Its the fucking Death Star's I and II. They have variable yield firepower, and it is a fucking plot point no less. Prior to the new movies, I would only cite the Death Star II shooting Rebel starships and blowing them up in one shot. I can and will still cite it, but I can now cite the original as well in a moment. Considering the sheer power it takes to blow up a planet it would make no sense to use maximum firepower to blow up a mere star cruiser. And it appeared as if the Death Star I had a cool down period of several hours or more between throwing planet-busting shots, so when we see the Death Star II blow up a second star cruiser just minutes after the first one, it demonstrates that they couldn't be using their maximum firepower in this instance. They must be able to vary the yield when using the superlaser against capital ships rather than planets.

Moreover, the case for this is even stronger in the new canon, definitive in fact. Starting with the less conclusive evidence in TFA, we see that Starkiller Base definitely has a cooldown period where it needs to tractor in more stellar material to fuse between blowing up planetary systems. This also conveniently disproves all previous arguments that these weapons use magic trickery and not brute force to destroy planets; and also neatly demonstrates that you don't need exotic materials like Kyber Crystals or Hypermatter to power them. Good old fusion power will work just fine. That they can generate such powerful energies using fusion is not actually unrealistic, as we know that the biggest stars generate planet-busting energy in a matter of a week or so-- Starkiller Base just speeds up the process so it can pulverise solar systems.

But the most definitive evidence is Rouge One. It is explicit in this movie that the Superlaser can fire lower yield shots by firing a single reactor rather than all of them to create explosions on planets similar in scale to asteroid impacts. This is almost certainly the same method used by the Death Star II to vaporize capital ships in quick succession. And if the technological capability is there with the Death Stars, the most powerful weapons in the Star Wars universe, and since smaller superlaser like weapons existed during the Clone Wars for anti-personnel use, there is every reason to believe that blasters, laser cannons, and turbolasers all have the exact same capability.

You have no case. None. You can't say this isn't canon. You can't say this isn't up to date. You can't argue the yield strength difference between the single reactor ignitions in Rouge One compared to the maximum firepower test on Alderaan. You can't distract us with red herrings about whether the weapon actually has that yield or whether some unseen variable was responsible for the variation, like you did with the AT-AT example. Or put forth unlikely interpretations of dialogue either. The case of the Death Star is definitive proof of variable yield energy weapons in Star Wars. Q.E.D.

"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." —Shroom Man 777"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"

Formless wrote: Final thing I will say on this issue. texan, you asked me if I had any other examples of variable firepower in canon. I do. Its one that cannot be ignored either in nu-canon or old canon. Its the fucking Death Star's I and II. They have variable yield firepower, and it is a fucking plot point no less. Prior to the new movies, I would only cite the Death Star II shooting Rebel starships and blowing them up in one shot. I can and will still cite it, but I can now cite the original as well in a moment. Considering the sheer power it takes to blow up a planet it would make no sense to use maximum firepower to blow up a mere star cruiser. And it appeared as if the Death Star I had a cool down period of several hours or more between throwing planet-busting shots, so when we see the Death Star II blow up a second star cruiser just minutes after the first one, it demonstrates that they couldn't be using their maximum firepower in this instance. They must be able to vary the yield when using the superlaser against capital ships rather than planets.

all true. very true. i agree.

Moreover, the case for this is even stronger in the new canon, definitive in fact. Starting with the less conclusive evidence in TFA, we see that Starkiller Base definitely has a cooldown period where it needs to tractor in more stellar material to fuse between blowing up planetary systems. This also conveniently disproves all previous arguments that these weapons use magic trickery and not brute force to destroy planets; and also neatly demonstrates that you don't need exotic materials like Kyber Crystals or Hypermatter to power them. Good old fusion power will work just fine. That they can generate such powerful energies using fusion is not actually unrealistic, as we know that the biggest stars generate planet-busting energy in a matter of a week or so-- Starkiller Base just speeds up the process so it can pulverise solar systems.

starkiller base doesn't use any kind of turbolaser technology as its main weapon so that whole paragraph is irrelevant and dismissed. continue.

But the most definitive evidence is Rouge One. It is explicit in this movie that the Superlaser can fire lower yield shots by firing a single reactor rather than all of them to create explosions on planets similar in scale to asteroid impacts. This is almost certainly the same method used by the Death Star II to vaporize capital ships in quick succession. And if the technological capability is there with the Death Stars, the most powerful weapons in the Star Wars universe, and since smaller superlaser like weapons existed during the Clone Wars for anti-personnel use, there is every reason to believe that blasters, laser cannons, and turbolasers all have the exact same capability.

I believe the term you are looking for is composite laser. we also know that hand blasters can. its called stun setting. i have already stated this. and those smaller composite beams used in AOTC were pretty much one offs. we never see them again to my knowledge. they also had nowhere near the tech complexity of the superlasers for the death stars. turbolasers/laser cannons are apples to composite beam oranges.

so to make sure, your argument is that because superweapons have a variable yield (by simply not using all of the reactors it has available), then turbolasers must be variable yield also. this is a huge stretchy assumption. that's like saying my .50 cal can fire a .22 round. they operate on different principles with different tech. the superlasers had multiple reactors to draw from. turbolasers don't. superlasers are powered by kyber crystals and focused. turbolasers aren't.

I do agree that the superlasers are indeed variable yield. I never said they weren't. they are also nonconventional weapons that only resemble conventional turbolasers in the sense that its green. turbolasers are the standard energy weapon that basically run a high energy laser through tibanna gas, creating some halfassed particle/plasma bolt of extremely limited range and duration. a superlaser uses huge kyber crystals to power and focus tributary beams, which then filter into 8 larger beams, which coalesce into one giant beam that moves much faster and with more power than any turbolaser bolt. hell, according to both canon and legends, the superlaser isn't even close to a conventional turbolaser. canon says its based more on lightsaber tech than blasters or turbolasers since it uses kyber crystals and a focusing lens and legends says the superlaser is composed of exotic particles.

:edit. forgot to put this quote in here

You have no case. None. You can't say this isn't canon. You can't say this isn't up to date. You can't argue the yield strength difference between the single reactor ignitions in Rouge One compared to the maximum firepower test on Alderaan. You can't distract us with red herrings about whether the weapon actually has that yield or whether some unseen variable was responsible for the variation, like you did with the AT-AT example. Or put forth unlikely interpretations of dialogue either. The case of the Death Star is definitive proof of variable yield energy weapons in Star Wars. Q.E.D.

it is canon. it is up to date. not arguing the strength of a SRI or the alderaan test. this isn't a red herring. this is me pointing out something that you have ignored or clearly overlooked. TURBOLASERS ARE NOT SUPERWEAPONS.
so yes, i do have a case. i am not ignoring your points. merely pointing out that assuming that all turbolasers MUST be variable yield because superweapons that barely resemble turbolasers can vary their output is at best, a fallacy of composition.

i leave you with this quote from the Catalyst:R1 novelization. ""The weapon will prove to be our greatest challenge. The hypermatter reactor, the drives, all the rest, are merely elaborations of the armaments our finest engineering firms have been able to provide to Star Destroyers and other vessels. But the weapon...the weapon won't merely be a larger version of the turbolaser. It will be something that has yet to be seen."
―Dr. Gubacher, during a meeting of the Strategic Advisory Cell, 21 BBY

This entire time, Khaat has been trying to tell you that turbolasers have multiple settings. No flak guns or light guns are listed BECAUSE TURBOLASERS CAN CHANGE THEIR SETTINGS. God damn, kid. I'd heard the term "digging your own grave," but you took it to a whole new level.

the flak burst from the avenger have been dismissed as shield interaction, not variable yield. that's even in the behind the scenes section that I already linked. of course, in all fairness it also says that the lateral laser canons on a venator are flak guns and we know that's not true. another theory that has more credibility is the fact that the SFX at the time consisted of roto scoping after the fact, with inconsistent and varying results. which means that the lengths of the bolt change from one perspective to the next. we also see this during the lightsaber duel in ANH where obi wans blade changes visibly as his lightsaber changes direction in relation to the camera. since just about every example we have seen of supposed variable yield comes from the OT movies, specifically ESB for the most part, that means that the best and most plausible explanation for "variable yield" is simple inconsistency in the effects. hell, even in R1 the bolts didn't look the same as any of the OT or PT.

No, you dumbass, you said it was flak. You said it had light turbolasers. When canon information says that it possesses only one type of turbolaser, then that means it is variable yield.

You display a remarkable skill at backtracking and redirection. Insufficient for this forum, but I don't doubt there are a number of poor fools out there who believe you're right. You should run for president someday.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
--Mace

The Old Testament has as much validity for the foundation of a religion as the pattern my recent case of insect bites formed on my ass.
--Solauren

No, you dumbass, you said it was flak. You said it had light turbolasers. When canon information says that it possesses only one type of turbolaser, then that means it is variable yield.

oy vey. you don't listen. in ESB, the flak burst effect is shield interaction. we saw that same effect from TIE fighters as well as the avengers turbolasers. those bursts are energy only and don't throw off debris. the ones from TCW do throw off debris. you pointed this out yourself. therefore they must be actual flak. see screenshots above. as i said, the stats from wookieepedia aren't always accurate. its a fan run site after all. and i have pointed out the shield interaction on other threads as well. not just this one.

You display a remarkable skill at backtracking and redirection. Insufficient for this forum, but I don't doubt there are a number of poor fools out there who believe you're right. You should run for president someday.

lmao from you that's a compliment.

Last edited by texanmarauder on 2017-12-21 06:15pm, edited 1 time in total.

and you have no right to call anybody a dumbass when you cant even tell the difference between a planetside strike and a flak burst.

Why did you return here again? I mean, I sort of get coming to troll people and make random crazy shit up, but why would you quit for six months and then begin with your same old tactics of lying, bullshitting, refusing to provide evidence, and inadvertendly agreeing with people, then lying about that? You've been clearly wrong in every argument you've ever on the forums, are clearly wrong here, and seem to just be wasting people's time and derailed threads.

"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

Librium Arcana, Where Gamers Play!
Nitram, slightly high on cough syrup: Do you know you're beautiful?
Me: Nope, that's why I have you around to tell me.
Nitram: You -are- beautiful. Anyone tries to tell you otherwise kill them."A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy, last Tweet